International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment 2019; 4(4): 63-70
http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/ijeee
doi: 10.11648/j.ijeee.20190404.11
ISSN: 2575-5013 (Print); ISSN: 2575-5021 (Online)
TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 Distribution Characteristics in the Thermal Power Plants in Korea
Geum-Ju Song*, Young-Hoon Moon, Jong-Ho Joo, A-Yeoung Lee, Jae-Bok Lee
Institute of Environmental and Energy Technology, Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH), Pohang, Republic of Korea
Email address:
*Corresponding author
To cite this article: Geum-Ju Song, Young-Hoon Moon, Jong-Ho Joo, A-Yeoung Lee, Jae-Bok Lee. TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 Distribution Characteristics in the
Thermal Power Plants in Korea. International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment. Vol. 4, No. 4, 2019, pp. 63-70.
doi: 10.11648/j.ijeee.20190404.11
Received: April 12, 2019; Accepted: May 31, 2019; Published: August 10, 2019
Abstract: In this study, the emission characteristics and heavy metal contents of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 pollutants from
three thermal power plants in Korea were investigated and compared to the electric production capacity, type of fuel and sort of
air-pollution-control device. For the measurement and analysis, Korean standard test method US EPA method were used. The
average concentration of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emitted from Plant A were 7.39, 6.16, 4.83 mg/Sm3, Plant B was 5.82, 4.87,
2.35 mg/Sm3 and Plant C was 1.54, 1.40, 10.02 mg/Sm
3, respectively. Plant A that uses heavy oil as the main fuel showed
higher TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 than Plant B that uses mostly anthracite coal, and plant B showed higher TSP, PM10 and PM2.5
than Plant C that mainly uses bituminous coal. The concentration of fine particles decreased as electricity-production capacity
increased. The fractions of PM10 and PM2.5 in TSP were relatively high in tested plants; this result means that more fine
particles than coarse particles were emitted from all stacks. The distribution of heavy metals by particle size showed similar
trends in all plants. The concentration of Zn and Mn in TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 showed higher than the others in all plants.
These results confirm that the content of heavy metals in the particulate matter is influenced by the fuel that the plant uses.
Keywords: Emission, TSP, PM10, PM2.5, Fuel, Heavy Metals, Thermal Power Plant
1. Introduction
Atmospheric pollutants can directly or indirectly harm
human health and properties, and ecosystems. These air
pollutants are classified into Criteria Air Pollutants (CAPs)
and Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) [1]. These substances
can be emitted by natural events such as volcanic eruptions,
forest fires and outgassing from swamps, or by human
technologies such as static facilities or vehicles.
Particulate pollutants are generated by mechanical
treatment such as crushing and sorting of a substance, or by
combustion and decomposition processes. Fine particles
include secondary dusts such as fume, soot, carbon black,
combustion nuclides, and oxygen-containing hydrocarbons,
sulfates and nitrates. Coarse particles include solid particles
such as cement dust, coal dust, and liquid particles such as
raindrops, sprays, and fogs.
Management of particulate pollutants has been intensified,
and attention has been focused on the effects of particle size
and of the components that constitute each particle. In 1983,
criteria for Total Suspended Particulates (TSPs) were
introduced in Korea. In 1995, the air environment standard for
the particulate matter of diameter ≤ 10 µm (Particulate Matter
10, PM10) was strengthened (to an average of 100 µg/m3 for
24 h; average of 50 µg/m3 for a year). From 2015, Korea has
begun to manage particles with diameters ≤ 2.5 µm
(Particulate Matter 2.5, PM2.5), and the management standard
is based on an average of 50 µg/m3 for 24 h or an average of 25
µg/m3 for a year [1]. According to data collected in 2014, 91.8%
of the 255 measurement sites in the nation exceeded the 24-h
average and 38.8% exceeded the PM10 annual average [2].
The average annual concentration of PM2.5 in the six major
cities in Korea in the last three years has been 32 µg/m3 (28-39
µg/m3), which exceeds the US standard (12 µg/m
3) [3] and the
64 Geum-Ju Song et al.: TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 Distribution Characteristics in the Thermal Power Plants in Korea
European standard (25 µg/m3) [4], and is about three times the
level of 10 µg/m3 recommended by WHO [5]. Studies on
human effects on PM10 have reported an increase in mortality
of about 0.5% per 10 µg/m3 of PM10 [6-7]. Based on these
data, WHO recommends an annual average concentration of
PM10 of 20 µg/m3, and a 24-h average concentration of 50
µg/m3 for short-term exposure. Because of its small size,
PM2.5 is not filtered by the bronchi, and weakens pulmonary
function or causes cardiovascular diseases [8]. Long-term
exposure to PM2.5 concentration of 11~15 µg/m3 has
associated risks, so WHO recommends an annual average of
10 µg/m3 [9-11].
In Korea, the necessity of managing PM2.5 emerged in the
1990s, as patients with respiratory-related diseases and those
with cardiovascular-related diseases died early due to the
effects of PM2.5 inhalation [12]. To avoid these consequences,
the sources of PM2.5 must be identified, and plans to reduce
their emissions must be developed. According to the domestic
air pollutant emission data in 2014, total TSP emission amount
is about 147 ton/y, PM10 about 98 ton/y and PM2.5 about 63
ton/y. Point sources of pollution emit 63 – 83% TSP, 17 – 36%
PM10 and 0.2 – 0.7% PM2.5 [13].
Among point sources, manufacturing combustion processes
emit the highest levels of TSP, PM10, and PM2.5. However,
combustion facilities of the energy-generation industry emit
TSP that have larger proportions of PM10 or PM2.5 than do
combustion facilities of manufacturing processes. Therefore,
production of fine dust should be managed in combustion
facilities of the energy-generation industry sources. Pollutants
generated during coal combustion especially particulate
matter below PM10, can harm human health [14-16]. These
pollutants are particularly problematic in developing countries,
where dust from coal combustion accounts for one-third of the
total amount of dust generated [17].
In September 2017, the Korean government announced the
"Plan for Fine Dust Management" jointly with the related
ministries to plan detailed implementation of measures to
reduce fine dust emission from old coal-fired power plants.
The highest priority is to replace or upgrade the facilities to
reduce production of fine dust by coal-fired power plants. The
first step toward meeting this goal is to accurately measure and
characterize the particulate and particulate precursors
generated by the current operating facility. Also, the
components of fine dusts must be identified. Many existing
studies have stated that harmful heavy metals in fine dusts can
exacerbate affect respiratory diseases and cardiovascular
diseases [18].
Therefore, in this study, emission characteristics and
constituents of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 were investigated in
three operating thermal power plants in Korea. The plants
were selected to have different electric production capacity,
fuel and sort of the air pollution control devices; the
distributions of fine particle and contents of heavy metals in
fine particles were investigated according these differences.
2. Methods and Materials
2.1. Target Plants
Generally, a thermal power plant burns by injecting fuel
with air into the boiler. A selective catalytic reduction system
(SCR) or a nonselective catalytic reduction system (SNCR) is
used to reduce the concentration of NOx in the emitted
combustion gases. An electrostatic precipitator (ESP) or a
fabric filter (FF) is used to remove dust. A flue-gas
desulfurization system (FGD) is used to remove SOx.
Figure 1. Process and condition of each plant tested.
In this study, three thermal power plants with different
capacity and used fuel were selected as target plants (Figure
1). Plant A has a capacity of 20 MW/h and uses heavy oil as
the main fuel (33603 L/d), with 724 ton/d of anthracite coal,
1384 ton/d of bituminous coal and 1275 L/d of diesel as
sub-fuels. Plant B has capacity of 200 MW/h and uses
anthracite coal as the main fuel (975 ton/d), with 244 ton/d of
bituminous coal and 137 L/d of heavy oil as sub-fuels. Plant
C has a capacity of 500 MW/h and uses bituminous coal as the
only fuel (4993 ton/d). Plant A and B used SNCRs. Plant C
had a separate denitrification facility (SCR).
2.2. Sampling Method
PM10 and PM2.5 were sampled (Figure 2) in accordance
with the air pollution test standard "ES 01112.1 - Method of
collecting particulate matter of exhaust gas" [19] and "ES
01317.1 - Method of collecting fine dust (PM10 and PM2.5)”
[20]. The test method is applicable only when the
temperature of the final exhaust gas is ≤ 260°C, and should
satisfy constant velocity suction coefficient of 90-110%. The
PM10 and PM2.5 are removed from TSP by a cyclone
combination unit, then collected using a nozzle directly in
front of the filter holder. The PM10 cyclone had cut diameter
(D50) = 9 – 11 µm, and the PM2.5 cyclone had D50 - 2.25 -
2.27 µm. The sampling rate was varied according to the
exhaust gas temperature. In this case, a nozzle capable of
collecting particles within the range of D50 should be used
[21]. Sampling was performed three times in the stack that is
the final outlet of each plant. The sample was collected using
a circular quartz filter which was heated at 500°C for 2-3 h.
The samples volumes were > 2 Sm3, but differed slightly
depending on the temperature, the dynamic pressure and the
static pressure of the exhaust gas of each plant.
International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment 2019; 4(4): 63-70 65
Figure 2. Sampling train for TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 in the stack.
2.3. TSP, PM10, PM2.5 Concentration Calculation and
Heavy Metal Analysis Method
2.3.1. TSP, PM10, PM2.5 Concentration Calculation
Method
The filter holder (figure 2) was placed in a quartz filter,
samples were collected, and the filters were stored in
individual filter cases for transport to the laboratory. In the
laboratory, the moisture was removed and the weight
concentration of particulates was determined using a balance
(model: METER MT, UMT) that can measure with a
precision of 10-4
g. The dust concentration in the exhaust gas
was calculated by dividing the weight concentration by the
sampled volume of gas.
2.3.2. TSP, PM10, PM2.5 Heavy Metal Analysis Method
The investigated target compounds were Cd, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni,
Pb, V and Zn. Most of these have emission standard values
[mg/Sm3]: Cd, 0.02; Cr, 0.3; Cu, 5; Ni, 2; Pb, 0.2 and Zn: 5
[22]. Mn and V in particulate matter have no emission
standard yet, but they are abundant in coal and heavy oil. For
the analysis of the target compounds in the collected
particulate matter, EPA method 3051A [23] was used. In the
pretreatment method, 10 mL of nitric acid was injected into a
microwave sample pretreatment apparatus (model: MARS,
CEM), and about 15 mL of distilled water was added so that
the filter was immersed. The vessel was placed in a hood to
remove the generated gas, then disassembled using a
microwave sample pretreatment apparatus. The dissolved
sample was filtered through filter paper (Whatman No. 41),
then the sample solution was prepared by adding the sample to
a 50-mL volumetric flask that was then filled to the mark with
distilled water. The target compounds were analyzed using
Inductively Coupled Atomic Emission Spectrometer (820-MS,
Varian). A standard heavy-metal stock from Accustandard was
used for heavy-metal analysis. The standard solution was
prepared by diluting a standard stock solution of 1000 mg/L to
1, 3, 5, 10, or 20 µg/L, and adjusting the nitric acid
concentration to 1%. Samples were analyzed according to
EPA 200.8 9 [24]. A rinse blank was used between samples.
The accuracy and precision experiments the methods were
performed according to the QA/QC Handbook [25]. The
accuracy was 80-90%, which is sufficient. The precision was
2.6-16.9%, which is less than the tolerable range of 20%, so
the reproducibility in the experiment is confirmed. The
calibration curves of target compounds all had coefficients of
determination (r2) > 0.9998. The linear range of the
calibration curve was used to check the stability of the
instrument and the conditions.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Concentration of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5
The concentration and fraction of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5
were calculated for each plant (Table 1). Generally, the TSP
is calibrated to 6% oxygen for power plants that use solid
fuels or liquid fuels [22]. However, in this study, the
measured values are presented without oxygen correction to
facilitate comparison of PM10 and PM2.5.
Plant A had TSP = 4.62 - 9.78 (7.39 avg.) mg/Sm3, PM10
= 5.02 - 8.35 (6.16 avg.) mg/Sm3 and PM 2.5 = 3.16 - 6.71
(4.83 avg.) mg/Sm3. The fraction of PM10 in TSP was ~83%,
the fraction of PM2.5 in TSP was ~65%, and the fraction of
PM2.5 in PM10 was ~78%.
Plant B had TSP = 5.43 - 6.11 (5.82 avg.) mg/Sm3, PM10
= 4.45 - 5.40 (4.87avg.) mg/Sm3 and PM2.5 = 2.03 - 2.80
(2.35avg.) mg/Sm3. The fraction of PM10 in TSP was ~84%,
the fraction of PM2.5 in TSP was ~40%, and the fraction of
PM2.5 in PM10 was ~48%.
66 Geum-Ju Song et al.: TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 Distribution Characteristics in the Thermal Power Plants in Korea
Plant C had TSP = 1.46 - 1.60 (1.54 avg.) mg/Sm3, PM10
= 1.31 - 1.57 (1.40 avg.) mg/Sm3 and PM2.5 = 0.96 - 1.13
(1.02 avg.) mg/Sm3. The fraction of PM10 in TSP was ~90%,
the fraction of PM2.5 in TSP was ~66%, and the fraction of
PM2.5 in PM10 was ~73%.
The distribution of fine dust varies according to the
emission plant, but also varies depending on the capacity and
process of the plant and the fuel used [18]: in combustion
plants that used fossil fuels, TSP was in the range of 0.7-14.4
mg/Sm3, and PM10 was 88.4-97.0%, PM2.5 was 65.7-75.5%
and PM10 was 25.5-52.0%; when the fuel was anthracite
coal, the fraction of PM10 and PM2.5 to TSP was somewhat
low, and at all of the plants, the dust collector was equipped
with an electrostatic precipitation [18]. In the present study,
the highest concentration of TSP was found in Plant A that
uses heavy oil. Of TSP in this plant, 83.4% was PM10 and
65.3% was PM2.5. In addition, TSP concentration was higher
in Plant B that uses anthracite than in Plant C that uses
bituminous coal. Of TSP in Plant B, 83.6% was PM10 and
40.4% was PM2.5. TSP concentration in emissions was
lowest from Plant C, but in it 90.2% was PM10 and 66.1%
was PM2.5. This is the same trend as noted by Ehrlich et al.
[18] and the same as in surveys of the fine dust emitted by
domestic thermal power plants [26-29]. In addition, Ehrlich
et al. [18] reported that plants that have an SNCR that inject
elements for NOx treatment have higher TSP concentrations
than plants that lack an SNCR. Our results agree with these.
In this study, TSP concentrations were higher for Plants A
and B, which used an SNCR to remove NOx, than for Plant
C, which uses an SCR. The amount of particulate matter was
highest in the plant that had the smallest. Therefore, this
study demonstrated that the distribution of particle
concentration and particle size are affected by the capacity
and process of the plant, the type of prevention plants, and
the fuel used, as suggested by Ehrlich et al. [18]. The
distributions of emitted TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 also differed
among the plants (figure 3). The distributions of PM10 and
PM2.5 were normalized by setting TSP to 100%; ~90% of
TSP was PM10 and ~66% of TSP was PM2.5 in all three
plants.
Table 1. Mean and (range) of concentration [mg/Sm3] and fraction [%] of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 in samples from each plant.
Plant TSP PM10 PM2.5 PM10/TSP PM2.5/TSP PM2.5/ PM10
A 7.39
(4.62-9.78)
6.16
(5.02-8.35)
4.83
(3.16-6.71)
83.4
(65.8-108.6)
65.3
(47.1-86.4)
78.3
(55.2-131.2)
B 5.82
(5.43-6.11)
4.87
(4.45-5.40)
2.35
(2.03-2.80)
83.6
(77.8-91.1)
40.4
(34.2-51.6)
48.3
(37.5-62.9)
C 1.54
(1.46-1.60)
1.40
(1.31-1.57)
1.02
(0.96-1.13)
90.2
(83.0-98.2)
66.1
(60.2-71.6)
72.7
(61.1-86.2)
Figure 3. Distribution of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 emitted from the stack of the tested plants.
3.2. Concentration of Heavy Metal in TSP, PM10 and
PM2.5
3.2.1. TSP
The concentrations of heavy metal in TSP differed among
the plants (Table 2, Figure 4). The total concentration of heavy
metals in TSPs decreased in the order Plant A > Plant B >
Plant C. The compositions were as follows: Plant A had Zn >
Mn > Cr > Pb > V > Ni > Cu > Cd; Plant B had Mn > Zn > Ni >
V > Cu > Pb > Cr and Plant C had Mn > Zn > V > Cu > Ni >
Pb > Cd > Cr. Mn, V, and Zn are mainly emitted in solid fuel
combustion plants, and Cr, Ni, and Cu are mainly emitted in
liquid fuel combustion plants [30-31]. Plant C uses only
bituminous coal as fuel; its results are similar to those of Pio et
al. [30-31] and Querol et al. [32]. Plant B showed a different
International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment 2019; 4(4): 63-70 67
tendency, possibly because it uses solid and liquid auxiliary
fuels. The higher Mn and Zn in Plants B and C than in Plant A
were attributed to the use of coal as the main fuel; the higher
Pb, Cr, and Ni in Plant A than in Plants B may occur because
Plant A uses heavy oil. In addition, the higher Mn and Zn in
Plant A than in Plants B and C may be the effects of its
auxiliary fuels, anthracite and bituminous coal. The difference
in the content of heavy metals in the three plants seems to be
due to the difference in fuel used.
Table 2. Mean and (range) of concentrations [µg/Sm3] of heavy metal in TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 in each plant.
Plant Size Element
Cd Cr Cu Mn Ni Pb V Zn
A
TSP 0.06
(0.01-0.13)
1.05
(0.85-1.24)
0.77
(0.36-1.11)
3.13
(2.22-4.05)
0.85
(0.55-1.15)
1.01
(0.54-1.58)
0.95
(0.75-1.34)
3.25
(1.58-4.28)
PM10 0.03
(0.02-0.03)
1.69
(0.78-2.61)
0.59
(0.46-0.79)
3.33
(2.95-4.64)
1.55
(0.82-1.99)
0.88
(0.71-1.17)
0.95
(0.77-1.34)
3.19
(1.93-3.93)
PM2.5 0.08
(0.02-0.16)
1.99
(0.64-3.33)
0.81
(0.33-1.65)
2.53
(2.21-2.86)
1.07
(0.76-1.39)
0.69
(0.56-0.84)
0.76
(0.63-0.83)
2.78
(1.87-3.77)
B
TSP 0.04
(0.03-004)
0.44
(0.37-0.54)
0.47
(0.41-0.51)
6.29
(5.97-6.53)
0.59
(0.37-1.05)
0.46
(0.44-0.50)
0.50
(0.43-0.60)
3.83
(3.09-4.94)
PM10 0.03
(0.03-0.04)
0.25
(0.16-0.30)
0.43
(0.39-0.45)
6.06
(5.65-6.48)
0.34
(0.30-0.42)
0.44
(0.41-0.51)
0.50
(0.43-0.60)
3.56
(3.27-4.08)
PM2.5 0.03
(0.02-0.03)
0.19
(0.16-0.22)
0.28
(0.25-0.34)
4.19
(3.89-4.44)
0.23
(0.19-0.28)
0.31
(0.26-0.35)
0.32
(0.26-0.39)
3.50
(1.60-5.37)
C
TSP 0.01
(0.00-0.01) 0.00
0.18
(0.16-0.18)
3.08
(2.89-3.33)
0.14
(0.00-0.27)
0.12
(0.10-0.13)
0.27
(0.24-0.29)
0.71
(0.29-1.51)
PM10 0.00
(0.00-0.01) 0.00
0.20
(0.18-0.24)
3.38
(3.23-3.51)
0.13
(0.00-0.21)
0.12
(0.09-0.14)
0.27
(0.24-0.29)
0.41
(0.32-0.46)
PM2.5 0.01
(0.00-0.01 0.00
0.18
(0.12-0.23)
2.64
(2.44-2.76)
0.06
(0.00-0.18)
0.09
(0.08-0.10)
0.20
(0.16-0.25)
0.77
(0.25-1.65)
Figure 4. Distribution of heavy metal in TSP emitted from the stack of the tested plants.
3.2.2. PM10
The concentrations of heavy metal in PM10 differed
among the plants (Table 2, Figure 5). The total concentration
of heavy metals in PM10 for each plant was in the order Plant
A > Plant B > Plant C, as with TSP. In Plant A the order was
Mn > Zn > Cr > Ni > V > Pb > Cu > Cd; in Plant B it was
Mn > Zn > V > Pb > Cu > Ni > Cr > Cd, and in Plant C it
was Mn > Zn > V > Cu > Ni > Pb > Cd > Cr. PM10 showed
high concentrations of Mn, Zn and V, and low concentration
of Cd, as with TSP. The rankings for each of these
compounds were somewhat different, possibly as a result of
the difference in fuel used, as is the case of TSP. The
distribution tendency of heavy metals in PM10 for each plant
is similar to the distribution of heavy metals in TSP for each
plant. However, in PM10 from Plant A, the concentration of
Ni was higher than that of V, and in PM10 of Plant B the
concentration of Ni was is slightly lower than that of V,
compared to TSP. That the difference in fuel affects the
distribution of heavy metal, and these heavy metal can also
be distributed differently depending on the particle size.
68 Geum-Ju Song et al.: TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 Distribution Characteristics in the Thermal Power Plants in Korea
Figure 5. Distribution of heavy metal in PM10 emitted from the stack of the tested plants.
3.2.3. PM2.5
The concentrations of heavy metals in PM2.5 also differed
among the plants (Table 2, Figure 6). The total concentration
of heavy metals in PM2.5 for each plant was in the order Plant
A > Plant B > Plant C, as with TSP and PM10. Plant A the
following was: Zn > Mn > Cr > Ni > Cu > V > Pb > Cd; in
Plant B it was Mn > Zn > V > Pb > Cu > Ni > Cr > Cd, and
in Plant C it was Mn > Zn > V > Cu > Pb > Ni > Cd > Cr.
The rankings for each of these compounds also differed,
possibly as a result of differences in the fuel used, as in the
cases of TSP and PM10. Although the tendency of
distribution of heavy metal in PM2.5 is similar to that in TSP
and PM10, Plant A showed the highest concentration of Pb,
and slightly higher Zn than Mn compared to TSP and PM10.
The heavy metals seem to show different distribution
tendencies by particle size.
Figure 6. Distribution of heavy metals in PM2.5 emitted from the stack of the tested plants.
4. Conclusion
This study quantified the distributions of TSP, PM10 and
PM2.5 and contents of heavy metals in those particles in
emissions from three thermal power plants, which use the
different fuel types and have the different electric-production
capacities. The following conclusions were obtained.
(1) The emission concentration of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5
were affected by the type of fuel used and the electric
generation capacity. These measurements were all
higher in emissions from Plant A that uses heavy oil as
the main fuel, than in emissions from Plant B that uses
mainly anthracite, or in emissions from Plant C which
uses mainly bituminous coal as fuel; the
International Journal of Economy, Energy and Environment 2019; 4(4): 63-70 69
measurements were also higher in Plant B than in
Plant C. The concentrations of particulate matter
decreased as the electricity-generation capacity of the
plant increased.
(2) The percentage of PM10 and PM2.5 to TSP differed
among plants. The fraction of each particle size
relative to the total concentration of particulate matter
is the PM10 for TSP in the plant using bituminous
coal. The fraction of PM2.5 was high. In the plants
that use bituminous coal, the emissions of TSP were
low, but had high proportions of PM10 and PM2.5.
However, in the other plants, the emission of TSP was
high had high proportions of PM10 and PM2.5. The
efficiency of the electrostatic precipitator installed in
each plant may be too low for removal of fine
particles.
(3) The distribution of heavy metal by particle size of
each plant was similar, but the distribution of heavy
metals obviously differed among the plants. All of
three measures of particulate matter were influenced
by the fuel used. Therefore, the distribution
characteristics of heavy metal according to particle
size are different according to the type and amount of
fuel used.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Korea Institute of Energy
Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded
by the Korea government (MOTIE) (20161110100210,
Development of AQCS solution for PM10 emission control
for Korean Standard and New Standard Coal-fired Power
Plants).
References
[1] Ministry of Environment (MEO), 2017. Framework Act on Environment Policy, Korea.
[2] Ministry of Environment (MEO), 2015(a). Annual Environmental Report, Korea.
[3] US EPA, 2012. National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
[4] European Environment Agency, 2008. Directive 2008/50 / EC.
[5] World Health Organization (WHO), 2005. Air Quality Guidelines for Particulate Matter, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide and Sulfur dioxide.
[6] Katsouyanni K., Touloumi G., Samoli E., Gryparis A., Tertre A., Monopolis Y., Rossi G., Ballester F., Boumghar A., Anderson R., Wojtyniak B., Paldy A., Braunstein R., Pekkanen J., Schindler C. and Schwartz J., 2001. Confounding and effect modification in short-term effects of ambient particles on total mortality-results from 29 European cities within the APHEA2 project”, Epidemiology, 12, 521-531.
[7] Cohen A and Ezzat M, 2004. Mortality impacts of urban pollution-Comparative quantification of health risks: global and regional burden of disease attributable to selected major
risk factors, Geneva, World Health Organization, 1352-1434.
[8] Smith K. R., Veranth J. M., Hu A. A., Lighty J. S. and Aust A. E., 2000. Interleukin-8 levels in human lung epitkeial cells are increased in response to coal fly ash and vary with the bioavailability of iron, as a function of particle Size and source of coal, Chem. Res. Toxicol, 13, 118-125.
[9] Dockery O. W., Pope C. A. and Xu X., 1993. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U. S. cities, New England Journal of Medicine, 329, 1753-175.
[10] Health Effects Institute, 2000. Reanalysis of Harvard Six-Cities study and American Cancer Society study of particulate air pollution and mortality: A special report of the institute's epidemiology reanalysis project, Cambridge, MA.
[11] Pope C. A, Dockery M. L. and Long R. W., 2002. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution, Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 1132-1141.
[12] Jo S. Y., Sun W. Y. and Joung Y. W., 2012. PM2.5 abatement effect analysis Establish future management policy roadmap. Korean National Institute of Environmental Research, NIER N029280, National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea.
[13] http://sodac.nier.go.kr, 2014. Source of Emission Statistics, National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea.
[14] Smith I. M. and Sloss L. L., 1998. PM10/2.5-emission and effects. IEA coal research report, London.
[15] England G. C., Zielinska B. and Loss K., 2000. Characterizing PM2.5 emission profiles foe stationary source-comparison of traditional and dilution sampling techniques. Fuel Proce. Technol. 65-66, 177-188.
[16] Sloss L. L., 2004. The importance of PM10/2.5 emission. IEA Clean Coal Centre report, London.
[17] Soud H. N and Wu Z., 2000. East Asia-air pollution control and coal fired power generation. IEA coal research report, London.
[18] Ehrlich C., Noll G., Kalkoff W. D., Baumbach G. and Dreiseidler A., 2007. PM10, PM2.5 and PM1.0-Emissions from industrial plants-Results from measurement programmes in Germany. Atmospheric Environment 41, 6236-6254.
[19] Korean Standard Test Method (KSTM), 2015(b). ES 01112.1 - Method for collecting particulate matter from exhaust gas, Ministry of Environment, Korea.
[20] Korean Standard Test Method (KSTM), 2015 (c). ES 01317.1a - Method for collecting fine dust (PM10 and PM2.5) in exhaust gas, Ministry of Environment, Korea.
[21] US EPA Method 201A, 2008. Determining PM10 and PM2.5 Emission from Stationary Source, USA.
[22] Ministry of Environment (MOE), 2015 (d). Air Environment Conservation Act, Korea.
[23] US EPA Method 3051A, 2007. MICROWAVE ASSISTED ACID DIGESTION OF SEDIMENTS, SLUDGES, SOILS, AND OILS, USA.
[24] US EPA Method 200.8, Revision 5.4, 1996. Determination of Trace Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma – Mass Spectrometry, USA.
70 Geum-Ju Song et al.: TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 Distribution Characteristics in the Thermal Power Plants in Korea
[25] Han J. S., Choi S. W., Kim J. E., Kim Y. L, Kim B. K., Hong T. G., Han K. B., Lee S. K. and Kim H. W., 2011. Environmental Test and Inspection QA/QC Handbook (2nd edition), NIER NO. 2011-08-1294, National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea.
[26] Song G. J., Kyeong J. K., Moon Y. H., Joo J. H and Lee A. Y., 2009. A Study on the Establishing the Speciate of the Air Pollutants from Anthropogenic Sources in Korea (II), NIER-N022886, National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea.
[27] Han J. S., Jang K. W., Jung N., Kim H. C., Kim M. S., Song D. J., Kim S. K. and Hong J. Y., 2010. A Study on the Establishing the Speciate of the Air Pollutants from Anthropogenic Sources in Korea (III), NIER NO 2010-93-1268, National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea.
[28] Joung Y. W., Jeoun K. J., Han S. H, Uu M. K., Lee J. H., Kim H. L., An S. K., Kim B. J., Lee H, K., Lee T. H. and Kang J. W., 2013. A Study on the Speciation and the Control Measures of PM2.5 from Large Stationary Emission Source (I), NIER-SP2013-206, National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea.
[29] Joung Y. W., Jeoun K. J., Han S. H, Lee J. M., Song J. M., Kim H. L., Lee J. H., An S. K., Song M. S., Kyang S. M., Kim B. J. and Kim D. K., 2014. A Study on the Speciation and the Control Measures of PM2.5 from Large Stationary Emission Source (II), NIER-SP2014-206, National Institute of Environmental Research, Korea.
[30] Pio C. A., Nunes T. V., Borrego C. A., Martins J., 1989. Assessment of air pollution sources in an industrial atmosphere using principal component/multilinear regression analysis. Science of the Total Environment 80, 279-292.
[31] Pio C. A., Castro L. H., Cerqueira M. A., Santos I. M., Belchior F., Salgueiro M. L., 1996. Source assessment of particulate air pollutants measured at the south-west European. Atmospheric Environment 30, 3309-3320.
[32] Querol X., Viana M., Alstuey A., Amato F., Moreno T., Castillo S., Pey J., de la Rosa J., A. Sanchez A., Artinano B., Salvador P., Garcia Dos Santos S., Fernandez-Patier R., Moreno-Grau S., Negral L., Minguillon M. C., Monfort E., Gil J. I., Inza A., Ortega L. A., Santamaria J. M., Zabalza J., 2007. Source origin of trace elements in PM from regional background, urban and industrial sites of Spain. Atmospheric Environment 41, 7219-7231.